Who's Going To Write the Heller Opinion?

[Paratus et Vigilans]

Okay, now that we've pretty well picked apart the arguments of counsel, who do you think will write the opinion?

As Chief, if Roberts is in the majority (as he likely will be), he gets to assign who writes the opinion. Will he assign it to himself, or dish it off, and if he dishes, to whom??

I'm seeing a 9-0 vote for an individual right under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms, and a 6-3 vote to uphold the appellate decision below finding that the DC law is invalid under the 2nd amendment (Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens will be the three). That puts Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and (probably) Souter in the majority.

Scalia knows a little something about guns, or at least about rifle calibers, as he showed by his question of how many guns one could have, and listing .270 and .30-06 among the calibers he knows. He also was pretty clearly chomping at the bit to get past the question of an individual right and get on to the meat of whether or not banning handguns was an infringement of the right, with questions about when you get to take off your gun lock . . .

Roberts seemed to be taking a very practical view of the issues.

Kennedy is seen as a so-called "swing vote," and may be more of a consensus builder.

It will be one of theses three. Roberts isn't ego driven, so won't keep it for himself just to have it on his resume. Scalia may be too strongly opinionated to take it on.

It may well be Kennedy, by default.

Fun thinking about it, anyway!

[Calguns2000]

+1 for Kennedy

[EastBayRidge]

You think Roberts would pass up a chance to write an opinion that will shape basic jurisprudence on a provision of the Bill of Rights that the SC has barely touched and that is a touchstone for millions across the country - ego shmego - it would be hard to resist this on a purely professional level. I think the CJ takes it.

[edwardm]

I think Kennedy, whether he knows it or not, volunteered himself by way of his position as 1) the likely swing and 2) his well-articulated views on the right's applicability to self-defense. I'm guessing that of the 'pro' justices, he is taking the most moderate position, but I don't think it's moderate enough to build more than a 5-4 split.

I'll put a mug of something frosty on 5-4 to affirm the DC court, and concede a 9-0 for individual right, but with 4 or 5 concurring opinions, each tweaking the 'right' here and there.

June is a looooong way off.

Okay, now that we've pretty well picked apart the arguments of counsel, who do you think will write the opinion?

As Chief, if Roberts is in the majority (as he likely will be), he gets to assign who writes the opinion. Will he assign it to himself, or dish it off, and if he dishes, to whom??

I'm seeing a 9-0 vote for an individual right under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms, and a 6-3 vote to uphold the appellate decision below finding that the DC law is invalid under the 2nd amendment (Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens will be the three). That puts Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and (probably) Souter in the majority.

Scalia knows a little something about guns, or at least about rifle calibers, as he showed by his question of how many guns one could have, and listing .270 and .30-06 among the calibers he knows. He also was pretty clearly chomping at the bit to get past the question of an individual right and get on to the meat of whether or not banning handguns was an infringement of the right, with questions about when you get to take off your gun lock . . .

Roberts seemed to be taking a very practical view of the issues.

Kennedy is seen as a so-called "swing vote," and may be more of a consensus builder.

It will be one of theses three. Roberts isn't ego driven, so won't keep it for himself just to have it on his resume. Scalia may be too strongly opinionated to take it on.

It may well be Kennedy, by default.

Fun thinking about it, anyway!

[Paratus et Vigilans]

I think Kennedy, whether he knows it or not, volunteered himself by way of his position as 1) the likely swing and 2) his well-articulated views on the right's applicability to self-defense. I'm guessing that of the 'pro' justices, he is taking the most moderate position, but I don't think it's moderate enough to build more than a 5-4 split.

I'll put a mug of something frosty on 5-4 to affirm the DC court, and concede a 9-0 for individual right, but with 4 or 5 concurring opinions, each tweaking the 'right' here and there.

June is a looooong way off.

Agreed, especially on all the concurring opinions we're likely to see, but on 5-4 vs. 6-3 to sustain the USCA DC Cir.,, I just have a feeling that Souter's going to come over to the majority on this one and make it 6-3. Nothing in particular on which to base that - - just a feeling.

Breyer seems to hold a pretty clear belief that it's reasonable, even in the face of an individual 2nd Amendment right, to ban handguns in an urban setting so long as rifles and shotguns are available for home defense. Stevens is just too far left to do anything other than vote to overrule the DC Cir. ruling. Hard to read Ginsberg on this, especially given her rather reasonable questions in oral argument, but I think she probably goes to her instinct, and more importantly, with the instincts of her clerks, who are likely to be way left like she usually is on most things, and the clerks have WAYYY more influence on what the SCOTUS does than most people realize.